View Single Post
02-07-2014, 03:11 PM
Registered User
K1984's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,306
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
The difference in how we're viewing this is you have blind faith in the administration that made this decision. Its being questioned a lot. It should be questioned.

Again, council voted against this Katz proposal that the city occupy and lease the proposed Katz tower. This being a democratic vote democratically by the representatives of this city that are VOTED on to city council.

This decision later being overturned by an administrative body. That nobody voted in.

As to the bid process criticism of the process was saying Katz was going to win all along. Is it because he had the best bid? How would you know? How would any of us know.

16 bids, just curiously the bid likely to be the most controversial won. Who didn't see that coming?
There's a difference between having blind faith and assessing the factors involved in this and coming to a conclusion.

We have a new mayor (who hasn't been one to give Katz a blank cheque in the past), and an entire new slate of council members that weren't around to vote on the arena deal or work with Katz in any capacity. I have difficulty believing that the new mayor and new councillors are following through on some backroom agreement with Katz when they have only been in office since November.

As mentioned in the post above, this was voted on, and it passed overwhelmingly. Michael Oshry (one of the rookies) voted against only because he felt that the City should build their own building, but reiterated that the Katz proposal was by far the best of the bunch.

Like I said earlier, this has all the buzzwords that are red meat for the anti-downtown development crusaders like you and Beerfish. You combine "Katz," "city," "arena district," and "development" in any article any chance of reasonable discussion gets tossed out the window.

K1984 is offline